Marsha, I would love a copy, I'll give you an address off-list, what I know of modern standard theory is that entities are assumed in order to use mathematical calculations. for example: " In 1926, Erwin Schrödinger, using Louis de Broglie's 1924 proposal that particles behave to an extent like waves, developed a mathematical model of the atom that described the electrons as three-dimensional waveforms, rather than point particles. A consequence of using waveforms to describe electrons is that it is mathematically impossible to obtain precise values for both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time; this became known as the uncertainty principle, formulated by Werner Heisenberg in 1926. In this concept, for each measurement of a position one could only obtain a range of probable values for momentum, and vice versa. Although this model was difficult to visualize, it was able to explain observations of atomic behavior that previous models could not, such as certain structural and spectral patterns of atoms larger than hydrogen. Thus, the planetary model of the atom was discarded in favor of one that described atomic orbital zones around the nucleus where a given electron is most likely to exist.[25][26]" "In the Standard Model of physics, both protons and neutrons are composed of elementary particles called quarks. The quark belongs to the fermion group of particles, and is one of the two basic constituents of matter—the other being the lepton, of which the electron is an example. There are six types of quarks, each having a fractional electric charge of either +2/3 or −1/3. Protons are composed of two up quarks and one down quark, while a neutron consists of one up quark and two down quarks. This distinction accounts for the difference in mass and charge between the two particles. The quarks are held together by the strong nuclear force, which is mediated by gluons. The gluon is a member of the family of gauge bosons, which are elementary particles that mediate physical forces." Historically, the hadrons (mesons and baryons such as the proton and neutron) and even whole atoms were once regarded as elementary particles. A central feature in elementary particle theory is the early 20th century idea of "quanta", which revolutionised the understanding of electromagnetic radiation and brought about quantum mechanics. For mathematical purposes, elementary particles are normally treated as point particles, although some particle theories such as string theory posit a physical dimension. All elementary particles are either bosons or fermions (depending on their spin). The spin-statistics theorem identifies the resulting quantum statistics that differentiates fermions from bosons. According to this methodology: particles normally associated with matter are fermions, having half-integer spin; they are divided into twelve flavours. Particles associated with fundamental forces are bosons, having integer spin.[3]
________________________________ From: X Acto <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:30:51 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Patterns s/o or relationship??? Marsha, I know you like to think of most physicsts as being stuck in the 1930's but most of the physicists who still thought in terms of objects are either dead or retired. I know you and Platt were just communicating, sorry for stepping in, I just thought that u-tube link was terribly interesting. -Ron ________________________________ From: MarshaV <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:19:00 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Patterns s/o or relationship??? Ron, I agree with you. It's impossible to find the words, and why understanding the nature of these patterns (word-labels) is ........ There is no common assumption. At their most understandable they're relationship, but in the end they are so much dust in the wind. If you want to be the hammerer on top, be my guest. A hammer is not as elegant as an X Acto Knife. I was just trying to communicate with Platt. As far SOL being obsolete for MOQ'ers, I was thinking of yet-to-be MOQ'ers. And Earth to Ron, many physicists do not know other than s/o with lots of space. Marsha At 01:43 PM 5/5/2009, you wrote: >Platt, Marsha, > Basically that is what she is saying only she uses the term relationship >which is commonly understood as interaction between objects, but, she >already states that what we assume as objects are actually greater sets >of relationships, relationships of relationships or a better word for what >she is describing is value. > >As I keep hammering on, common assumptions about common terms >in our culture is what creates philosophical paradox , the failure >of rationalism. Our language is based on the grammatic predication >of subjects and objects. So even when we hear the term relationships >we automatically conceptualize the interaction of objects and have difficulty >even forming concepts about entityless abstractions. The same goes for value, >The terms "value" and "relationship" are almost meaningless without >the conventional conception of objects. >Physicists have understood the inherent emptiness of reality for the past >60-70 yrs but has yet to percolate to the public. >This is why SOL is redundant and obsolete, as MoQists >we already know this, physicists already know this. >Pirsig uses the lingual distinction of Dq/Sq just to avoid >essentialism in conception. > >-Ron > > > > > >________________________________ >From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:16:19 AM >Subject: Re: [MD] Patterns s/o or relationship??? > >On 5 May 2009 at 6:56, MarshaV wrote: > > > > > Are all physicist as enlightened as this one??? > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRduOpj1R7c&feature=related > > > > > > 4:05 minutes > >Marsha, > >Don't you think this physicist would be more enlightened if she had >acknowledged the role of values in the structure of the universe? >Emphasizing relationships and interconnections as she does strikes me as >assuming an S/O premise. > >Thanks for the link. > >Platt > >Moq_Discuss mailing list >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >Archives: >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > > >Moq_Discuss mailing list >Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >Archives: >http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ . _____________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars......... . . Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
